Archive for December, 2008

Case of Berg vs. Obama, U.S.S.C. Case No. 08-570, in the U.S. Supreme Court has been scheduled for two [2] Conferences [January 9th and 16th, 2009].

The Justices of the Supreme Court will read letters sent to them. Let them know how important it is for them to hear our case; how “standing” is important on the issue of Obama’s qualifications; how we are headed for a “Constitutional crisis” if Obama’s qualifications are not resolved; how important it is to follow “our Constitution;” and how Obama’s records: his original ‘vault’ birth certificate, immigration records when he as Barry Soetoro [adopted in Indonesia] returned to Hawaii in 1971, if any, and any change of name Court records are necessary as Obama might be an illegal alien, not only not qualified to be President, but a fraud as U.S. Senator from Illinois.

Write one [1] letter to the nine Justices of the United States Supreme Court (names are listed below), make nine [9] copies and put them in nine [9] separate envelopes, addressed to each Justice, and then place them into one [1] manila envelope and mail to:

Note: Any communications received by the U.S. Supreme Court via e-mail or fax are thrown away. The U.S. Supreme Court will not take telephone messages for the Justices. All communications to the U.S. Supreme Court must be done in writing and sent to them by way of U.S. mail, UPS, Federal Express, etc.

Everyday my mail box is filled with requests to investigate corruption at all levels of government. It’s regrettable that so much time and effort has to be directed in exposing Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham as a fraud, but it must be done.

In my last exclusive on the U.S. Supreme Court, December 15, 2008: ‘Has the U.S. Supreme Court No Shame?’ I covered the cowardice by those justices earlier this week. I also wanted to let readers know that I put some of the legal documents from those cases, critical material from Leo Donofrio’s web site and the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) case on audio. One of the recordings is also Dr. Edwin Vieira’s column dated December 8, 2008; more on that below. This makes it easy for Americans who are overwhelmed with obligations to be able to listen to all this material on your computer, down load to a CD and listen while you drive or onto an IPod and listen on the commute train or on a plane.

The importance of Edwin’s column can not be ignored. Despite one of the largest grass roots efforts in the 19 years I’ve been in the ‘freedom movement,’ the Supreme Court spit on the U.S. Constitution; so did the electoral college delegates on the same day.

The process is not over yet as Edwin explains in his column: One member of the House of Representatives and one counterfeit U.S. Senator can raise an objection to the vote of the electoral college on January 20, 2009; this must be done:

“Indeed, in these times, the very absence of an objection may indicate only that “the good old boys” in Congress—Democrats certainly, and Republicans most likely, too—have “cut a deal” among themselves behind the scenes in order to suppress an investigation the inevitable and unavoidable results of which would demonstrate the utter bankruptcy, if not criminality, of the present electoral process—in that an individual possibly not “eligible to the Office of President” and his handlers may have managed to bamboozle, bribe, blackmail, or otherwise subvert, suborn, or silence both of the “two” major political parties, the big media, the pundits, and every public official with civil or criminal jurisdiction over elections throughout both the General Government and the States.”

Patrick Briley, who has a long history of interaction with Sen. James Inhofe, has formally asked Inhofe to make this objection. The only person in the entire U.S. House of Representatives who might undertake such an objection would be Congressman Ron Paul. I highly recommend everyone read Edwin’s column or listen to it in the audio section and then call Sen. Inhofe and Ron Paul’s district offices. Request they file a written objection to the vote by the electoral college delegates.

A substantial number of Americans, thanks to the Internet, are aware of the citizenship controversy: December 16, 2008. “Obama citizenship issue has merit, AOL poll says. Nation seeks answers to questions about president-elect’s eligibility. In all, 32 states agree that there could be merit to the Obama citizenship controversy.” Don’t think for a second that all these efforts are a waste of time. They are not. Obama is going down, it’s just a matter of time.

The birth certificate issue

Obama has refused to provide a real, long form birth certificate. The short form image he produced in June 2007, is a forgery. There’s no question in my mind at this point in time. You can view this document here. Please note the race of Obama’s mother: Caucasian. Then note the race of Obama’s father: African. He was born in Kenya. Have you ever seen Africa listed as a race before? A “geographical race” can be listed as Africa, but for birth certificates, I can find none that list Africa or United States as a race – except Obama’s. Why isn’t his mother’s race listed as United States? There are caucasians born on the continent of Africa, but would they be listed as Africa under race? Hardly.

Obama refuses to release any other documents being held by the State of Hawaii. Obama didn’t have any problem when it came to the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts (emphasis mine): “Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination.”

This isn’t about privacy for Obama, it’s about lies and lots of them. I have several Freedom of Information Act and State Records Act requests outstanding. I will continue to fight to get the documents I want — especially the ones from the U.S. State Department who have simply ignored my FOIAs altogether at this point. Why? Because I know Obama has been lying about his life for decades. The American people have the right to know the truth – the whole truth.

Citizenship qualification under the U.S. Constitution

The foolish people who work for the mainstream media and that includes cable news networks (CNN, MSNBC, FOX) have either excoriated anyone who believes a candidate running for president of these united States of America must prove his citizenship, or have completely ignored this issue, aren’t even worth commenting on any longer. These networks and their anchors are nothing but a disgrace to their profession.

Obots (Obama faithful) continue to say it doesn’t matter that Obama’s father was foreign born and governed by Britain. They parrot because Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a natural born citizen at birth, that automatically qualifies Obama as natural born at birth. Nothing could be further from the truth. On FactCheck.org, the official mouth piece for Obama, you will see this statement:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

If you read (or listen) to the Wong Kim Ark case cited above, this is the case in a nutshell. Wong Kim Ark, was a young Chinese man born in San Francisco, California. His parents were subjects of the Emperor of China even though they were permanently domiciled in California. Ark left the U.S. for a short period of time for a visit to China. Upon his return, he was denied entry back into the U.S. because he was not a natural born citizen at birth. This was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices gave this case a thorough, historical scrubbing and in the end their decision was against Wong Kim Ark: “In other words, the fourteenth amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this government, are and must remain aliens. Tested by this rule, Wong Kim Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the district court should be reversed.”

Advertisement

The justices go into great detail about the Fourteenth Amendment as it relates to this issue as well as treaties. Obama’s mother was born in the U.S. There is no disputing that fact. His father was Kenyan born. Obots claim that Obama never gave up his citizenship either as a result of his father being foreign born or when his mother married Lolo Soetoro. The Wong Kim Ark case covered that argument as well:

‘That said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.’

That argument proved fruitless as the court ruled against Wong Kim Ark.

Is there other historical material on this? A considerable amount which is found on Leo Donofrio’s web site which I have put on audio with his permission, i.e,:

“I’ll leave you now with the relevant textbook definition of natural born citizen. The following was published in 1758. This definition, added to all of the above, certainly establishes a rational legal basis to hold that Barack Obama is not a natural born Citizen. And more than that, it puts the burden on those who deny it to don the tin foil hat of despair and bring forthwith to the table of honest debate their own bed of authority to lie in:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Obots are very passionate about their support of this man who has sealed up his life tight as Scrooge. Obama slaps his supporters in the face with each passing day by refusing to address this issue other than spending a whopping one million dollars to date to fight the exposure of all his lies. But, what can one expect since Obama’s base is Chicago, Illinois, a state that has produced some of the most corrupt elected officials in this history of this country.

Regular readers of my columns know that I sent a great deal of information to James Burrus, Chief of Election Fraud at the FBI in Washington, DC. I respectfully requested Burrus investigate Obama for violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343, wire fraud, for starters. In no uncertain terms, I told Burrus that Obama has always known he was not constitutionally eligible to be president of these united States of America, yet he still hustled for campaign donations in violation of the cited statute. Obama decided to gamble and use his massive power and influence to flim flam the American people. I’m sending this column and a CD to Burrus over night mail. The CD contains all five parts I just recorded (see first paragraph above). I am going to reinforce to Burrus that he must, if he hasn’t already, open an investigation into the criminal activities of Barack Hussein Obama.

Many believe Obama will be implicated in the Gov. Blagojevich mess. Many believe Rezko has been singing, but not about Obama. Why?

April 28, 2008. Witness: ‘Patrick Fitzgerald would be terminated’

“Tony Rezko associate Elie Maloof (pictured above, right) just testified that when he received a grand jury subpoena, Rezko told him not to talk to the feds. Why?

“The federal prosecutor will no longer be the same federal prosecutor,” Maloof just testified that Rezko told him. What did Rezko mean prosecutor Chris Niewoehner asked? “That Patrick Fitzgerald would be terminated and Dennis Hastert will name his replacement. The investigation will be over.”

“Maloof, who once helped run some of Rezko’s fast-food businesses, said Rezko told him of Fitzgerald’s replacement: “That they will order the prosecutor to stop the investigation. It is the first time jurors heard an accusation that Rezko worked behind the scenes to oust Fitzgerald.”

The only thing one can say is that whole cabal out there in Chicago, including Obama, puts the mafia to shame. These people wallow in corruption like pigs. They lie, cheat and steal until they get caught. I’ve received a slew of emails from Americans who live in Illinois. They celebrated when Blago was arrested and are now praying the long arm of the law gets the rest of the crooks. If Obama is sworn into office, he will use the Department of Justice to “make it all go away.”

Should impostor president, Obama, be sworn in January 20, 2009, it will be one of the darkest days for America. The U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated they are too cowardly to take on the monumental decision of declaring Obama ineligible for the office of president. The political machines, RNC and DNC, have refused to address this valid issue. Most of the American people don’t have a clue because the newspapers in this country are as corrupt as Congress. However, the millions of us who do know the truth will continue our efforts until the pressure becomes so great, Obama is removed from office. Not by impeachment, because he was never legally qualified as Edwin Vieira points out in his legal analysis.

As I said in a recent column: Any and all negative consequences will be the responsibility of Obama and him alone, because he is the one who has lied and cheated his way into the White House. Obama won’t be the first mulatto president, he’ll be the first who is driven from office in shame and/or he is indicted for crimes, i.e., wire fraud. Yes, I am aware that he will unlawfully appoint a new Attorney General, however, there are good people in the FBI who will not turn a blind eye to what’s going on. Nixon was brought down by a cover up and so will Obama.

Of course, this brings even more legal headaches. I am not an attorney, so this is simply my opinion. Biden would not automatically become president. Because Obama knowingly and with criminal intent perpetrated a fraud upon the American people when he declared his candidacy, his selection of a VP candidate would be meaningless as it was an element of the fraud. Additionally, as Edwin pointed out in his column, any legislation signed by Obama into law which brings a criminal indictment would open the flood gates to challenges. If Obama signed another one of these unconstitutional “hate crime” laws and Joe Smith is charged, he can and must use as his defense the fact that Obama is an impostor and has no authority to sign such legislation into law.

You might use printer friendly below and send this column to your member of Congress (House and Senate) today. Just put it in an envelope and send it to one of their district offices. A few million should do the trick. Forget email, those offices get hundreds of thousands of them and use form responses. Forget sending it to DC. It’s quicker and local staff will pass a hard copy along to the boss. Let Congress know that when they meet on January 6, 2009, they have the power to stop this flim flam man from taking office and if they don’t, the legal quagmire and rage will simply escalate.

National Geographic Channel ran a show last night entitled, “Gun In America.” According to the program, there are millions of misguided gun owners across the nation. Why? Because your guns are supposedly more likely to harm you than to help you in an emergency.

“As a society, we’re totally out of control with weapons,” said one Philadelphia cop who was interviewed during the show. “You need to limit access that people have to these type of firearms.”

That was the basic thrust of the program. National Geographic recited the usual worn-out factoids that are peddled by the Brady Campaign. It only cited anti-gun cops. And for every person who was filmed stating he or she believed in a right to own firearms for self-defense, the program would cite “facts” to prove that such a hope was misplaced.

Gun owners should let the President and CEO of National Geographic know that the channel should stick to showing pictures of kangaroos and foliage — images that we normally attribute to National Geographic’s magazine — and keep his personal, anti-gun views to his private conversations around the Christmas dinner table.

The National Geographic Channel presents itself as an educational, unbiased alternative. But “Guns in America” was hardly unbiased, as can be seen by the following agenda items that were pushed during the program:

1. “Guns in America” would have you believe that the guns in your home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to protect you. This statistic can (surprise, surprise!) be found on the Brady Campaign website, but its source has been highly discredited. The factoid originates with Arthur Kellerman, who has generated multiple studies claiming that guns are a net liability.1 But Kellerman has been found guilty of fudging his data, and even the National Academy of Sciences has stated that his “conclusions do not seem to follow” from his data.2

The truth of the matter is actually quite encouraging for gun owners. Anti-gun researchers for the Clinton Justice Department found that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense, which means that each year, firearms are used more than 50 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.3

Isn’t that strange? You would think anti-gunners wouldn’t mind citing a study that was commissioned by the Clinton Justice Department! Apparently, the results of the study didn’t fit their agenda.

2. “Guns in America” overstates the number of children who die by unintentional gunfire. The program would have viewers believe that a child dies by accidental gunfire, once every two days. But you can only reach that figure if you count violent-prone teens as “children.”

In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that you feed them.4 Hmm, why doesn’t National Geographic want to report on those killer peanuts?

3. “Guns in America” portrays twelve times as many negative uses of guns as positive uses — even though in the real world, the truth is quite the opposite (as guns are used at least 50 times more often to save life than take life). The program does start with a dramatization of a legitimate self-defense story with an actual 911 call playing in the background. But after that, every dramatization is about drive-by-shootings or cops being shot or gang-related warfare.

The lesson for the viewer is: Guns are bad.

4. “Guns in America” only quotes anti-gun “authorities,” thus leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes:

* Should any law-abiding citizen be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self defense? — 93% of law-enforcement said yes.5

* Do you believe law-abiding citizens should be limited to the purchase of no more than one firearm per month? — 70.1% of law-enforcement said no.6

* Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected? — 68.2% of law-enforcement said yes.7

It’s bad enough that a liberal teacher’s union controls the education of our kids in the public schools, and that many of them are being brainwashed with politically correct thinking. We don’t need supposedly neutral programs like National Geographic peddling the Brady Campaign’s favorite factoids to an unsuspecting public.

ACTION: Please contact Tim T. Kelly, the President and CEO of National Geographic Ventures (which includes their television division), and urge him to steer the NatGeo channel away from politics. If the National Geographic Channel can’t run a balanced program — where they use real statistics — then they just need to stick to filming those cute little animals that helped make their magazine so famous.

You can go to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/contact to cut-and-paste the sample letter below into their webform. Since you will need to select a Topic, please choose “I have a complaint.” And for “Department,” we would suggest selecting “Factual Questions” or “General.”
—- Pre-written letter —-

Dear Mr. Kelly:

I will think twice before ordering the National Geographic magazine, because I don’t want to help you fund any more anti-gun propaganda. Your Explorer show entitled “Guns In America” — which has run several times this month — was heavily slanted to the gun control position. The show used fallacious statistics without rebutting them, all in an effort to demonize firearms.

For example, “Guns in America” falsely claimed that guns in the home are 22 times more likely to kill a family member than to serve as protection. That is simply not true. The author of this study, Arthur Kellerman, has been discredited many times (by groups such as the National Academy of Sciences), so it’s shameful that your channel would even cite his work.

Second, “Guns in America” overstates the number of children who die by unintentional gunfire. In fact, when you look at the statistics involving younger children (ages 0-14), you see that kids have a greater chance of dying from choking on things like the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that you feed them. Can I expect to see a show in the near future highlighting the danger of feeding children?

Third, “Guns in America” portrays twelve times as many negative uses of guns as positive uses — even though in the real world, the truth is quite the opposite. According to statistics from the Clinton Justice Department in 2007, guns are used at least 50 times more often to save life than take life.

Finally, “Guns in America” only quotes anti-gun “authorities,” thus leaving the impression that all law-enforcement support gun control. Never mind the fact that when one looks at polls of the police community, they overwhelmingly hold pro-gun attitudes. (Please see the poll results on the website for the National Association of Chiefs of Police.) Why were none of these authorities ever cited?

The National Geographic Society’s purpose is “to increase and diffuse geographic knowledge while promoting the conservation of the world’s cultural, historical, and natural resources.” I would submit to you that pushing gun control is far afield from your stated purpose.

Sincerely,

ENDNOTES:

1 Arthur Kellerman has generated multiple studies that claim gun owners are more likely to be injured by their guns than to use those guns in self-defense. His results range from 3 to 22 to 43 times more likely to be injured by a gun in the home. His methodology has been debunked, however, many times over. (See endnote 2.)

2 See http://www.gunowners.org/sk0701.htm . Also, see Charles F. Wellford, John Pepper, Carol Petrie, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004), p. 118.

Shame: the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another;.disgrace; ignominy

Today, and for the second time, the U.S. Supreme Court shirked its duty and responsibility to hear a case that has direct bearing on whether Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham, is a legitimate candidate to be America’s next president. Without question, should the U.S. Supreme Court have ruled Obama ineligible to qualify as a candidate for the presidency, it would have created an unprecedented upheaval, but we the people have the right to a legitimate president no matter the pain of completing the process. The Founding Fathers and colonials gave their honor, their money and their blood as principled individuals. They stood their ground and so shall we the people despite the cowardly path chosen by these justices.

The stonewalling by Obama and his legal legions in Obama’s refusal to respond to the allegations that he does not meet constitutional requirements for citizenship redefines hubris. One can imagine his joy today when the order was posted that the U.S. Supreme Court again spit on the U.S. Constitution for political expediency and out of sheer cowardice. There can be no other explanation for the court refusing to hear the Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski cases.

As Leo said in a recent post on his web site, it doesn’t matter what the cell damaged media lap dogs say about these cases. What matters is the supreme law of the land. Today’s DENIED by the “high” court makes it perfectly clear that those nine justices don’t have the guts to take on such a huge decision. Never mind the million plus letters that were sent to the court by Americans who demand the supreme law of the land be upheld. Never mind the pompous blathering by politicos on web sites who care nothing for the U.S. Constitution. The one and only question was and still remains: Was Barack Hussein Obama a natural born citizen at birth?

There are still a number of cases on going. The electoral college delegates meet at all 50 state capitols today to vote for this impostor. What happens next will depend on what these electors do during the vote. Further updates will follow.

There has been so much disinformation and distortions about all the cases relating to this issue on the Internet. Having read a great deal of the blarney out there by bloggers, TV and radio talk show hosts and columnists who support Obama, I can tell you 99.999% of them never read a single word in any of the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court. Their own words condemn them as either intellectually lazy or simply ignorant.

Emotions have run high over this controversy which all could have been avoided had Obama simply come clean about his citizenship. Instead, this impostor has chosen to commit a fraud against the American people that, should he be sworn in, will simply prolong the inevitable. Obama is going down, it’s just a matter of time. If sworn in, he will begin his presidency the same as the famous Clinton duo: drowning in controversy and rage from Americans who still believe in the supreme law of the land.

I fully understand time is an issue for Americans. However, to really understand how serious the question is regarding Obama’s eligibility, one must take the time to at least read some of the most factual information available. If Obama could have proven his citizenship, he would have done so many, many months ago. He’s bluffing we the people will simply go away and allow him to be sworn in as Impostor in Chief. That isn’t going to happen.

In an effort to make things easier and because I’m not certain how long Leo will leave his web site up and running, I have put several documents into the audio section of my web site. You can listen via the computer, download to a CD and listen on the road, in commute traffic, on a train or plane. Share these recordings with friends, family and those who still believe we are a nation of laws, not lies. These recording include Leo’s submission to the U.S. Supreme Court, Cort’s submission and additional filing with the court, some of the material from Leo’s site (with his permission) and a critically important column from Dr. Edwin Vieira on what will happen should Obama get sworn into office.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on THE AMERICA YOU KNEW IS DEAD

“I have a vision of Americans in their 80’s being wheeled to their offices and factories having lost their legs in imperial wars and their pensions to Wall Street speculators and with bitter memories of voting for a President who promised change, prosperity and peace and then appointed financial swindlers and war mongers.” — An itinerant Minister, 2008

Introduction

The entire political spectrum ranging from the ‘libertarian’ left, through the progressive editors of the Nation to the entire far right neo-con/Zionist war party and free market Berkeley/Chicago/Harvard academics, with a single voice, hailed the election of Barack Obama as a ‘historic moment’, a ‘turning point in American history and other such histrionics. For reasons completely foreign to the emotional ejaculations of his boosters, it is a historic moment: witness the abysmal gap between his ‘populist’ campaign demagoguery and his long-standing and deepening carnal relations with the most retrograde political figures, power brokers and billionaire real estate and financial backers.

What was evident from even a cursory analysis of his key campaign advisers and public commitments to Wall Street speculators, civilian militarists, zealous Zionists and corporate lawyers was hidden from the electorate, by Obama’s people friendly imagery and smooth, eloquent deliverance of a message of ‘hope’. He effectively gained the confidence, dollars and votes of tens of millions of voters by promising ‘change’ (implying higher taxes for the rich, ending the Iraq war and national health care reform) when in fact his campaign advisers (and subsequent strategic appointments) pointed to a continuation of the economic and military policies of the Bush Administration.

Within 3 weeks of his election he appointed all the political dregs who brought on the unending wars of the past two decades, the economic policy makers responsible for the financial crash and the deepening recession castigating tens of millions of Americans today and for the foreseeable future. We can affirm that the election of Obama does indeed mark a historic moment in American history: The victory of the greatest con man and his accomplices and backers in recent history.

He spoke to the workers and worked for their financial overlords.

He flashed his color to minorities while obliterating any mention of their socio-economic grievances.

He promised peace in the Middle East to the majority of young Americans and slavishly swears undying allegiance to the War Party of American Zionists serving a foreign colonial power (Israel).

Obama, on a bigger stage, is the perfect incarnation of Melville’s Confidence Man. He catches your eye while he picks your pocket. He gives thanks as he packs you off to fight wars in the Middle East on behalf of a foreign country. He solemnly mouths vacuous pieties while he empties your Social Security funds to bail out the arch financiers who swindled your pension investments. He appoints and praises the architects of collapsed pyramid schemes to high office while promising you that better days are ahead.

Yes, indeed, “our greatest intellectual critics”, our ‘libertarian’ leftists and academic anarchists, used their 5-figure speaking engagements as platforms to promote the con man’s candidacy: They described the con man’s political pitch as “meeting the deeply felt needs of our people”. They praised the con man when he spoke of ‘change’ and ‘turning the country around’ 180 degrees. Indeed, Obama went one step further: he turned 360 degrees, bringing us back to the policies and policy makers who were the architects of our current political-economic disaster.
The Con Man’s Self-Opiated Progressive Camp Followers

The contrast between Obama’s campaign rhetoric and his political activities was clear, public and evident to any but the mesmerized masses and the self-opiated ‘progressives’ who concocted arguments in his favor. Indeed even after Obama’s election and after he appointed every Clintonite-Wall Street shill into all the top economic policy positions, and Clinton’s and Bush’s architects of prolonged imperial wars (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates), the ‘progressive true believers’ found reasons to dog along with the charade. Many progressives argued that Obama’s appointments of war mongers and swindlers was a ‘ploy’ to gain time now in order to move ‘left’ later.

Never ones to publicly admit their ‘historic’ errors, the same progressives turned to writing ‘open letters to the President’ pleading the ’cause of the people’. Their epistles, of course, may succeed in passing through the shredder in the Office of the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

The conjurer who spoke of ‘change’ now speaks of ‘experience’ in appointing to every key and minor position the same political hacks who rotate seamlessly between Wall Street and Washington, the Fed and Academia. Instead of ‘change’ there is the utmost continuity of policy makers, policies and above all ever deepening ties between militarists, Wall Street and the Obama appointments. True believer-progressives, facing their total debacle, grab for any straw. Forced to admit that all of Obama’s appointments represent the dregs of the bloody and corrupt past, they hope and pray that ‘current dire circumstances’ may force these unrepentant warmongers and life long supporters of finance capital to become supporters and advocates of a revived Keynesian welfare state.

On the contrary, Obama and each and everyone of his foreign policy appointments to the Pentagon, State and Justice Departments, Intelligence and Security agencies are calling for vast increases in military spending, troop commitments and domestic militarization to recover the lost fortunes of a declining empire. Obama and his appointees plan to vigorously pursue Clinton-Bush’s global war against national resistance movements in the Middle East. His most intimate and trusted ‘Israel-First’ advisers have targeted Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine and Iraq.

Obama’s Economic Con Game

Then there is the contrast between the trillions Obama will shower on the financial swindlers (and any other ‘too big to fail’ private capitalist enterprise) and his zero compensation for the 100 million heads of families swindled of $5 trillion dollars in savings and pensions by his cohort appointees and bailout beneficiaries. Not a cent is allocated for the long term unemployed. Not a single household threatened with eviction will be bailed out.

Obama is the trademark name of a network of confidence people. They are a well-organized gang of prominent political operative, money raisers, mass media hustlers, real estate moguls and academic pimps. They are joined and abetted by the elected officials and hacks of the Democratic Party. Like the virtuoso performer, Obama projected the image and followed the script. But the funding and the entire ‘populist’ show was constructed by the hard-nosed, hard-line free marketeers, Jewish and Gentile ‘Israel Firsters’, Washington war mongers and a host of multi-millionaire ‘trade union’ bureaucrats.

The electoral scam served several purposes above and beyond merely propelling a dozen strategic con artists into high office and the White House. First and foremost, the Obama con-gang deflected the rage and anger of tens of millions of economically skewered and war drained Americans from turning their hostility against a discredited presidency, congress and the grotesque one-party two factions political system and into direct action or at least toward a new political movement.

Secondly the Obama image provided a temporary cover for the return and continuity of all that was so detested by the American people ­ the arrogant untouchable swindlers, growing unemployment and economic uncertainty, the loss of life savings and homes and the endless, ever-expanding imperial wars.

Featuring Paul Volker, ‘Larry’ Summers, Robert Gates, the Clintons, Geithner, Holder and General (‘You drink your kool-aid while I sit on Boeings’ Board of Directors’) Jim Jones USMC, Obama treats us to a re-run of military surges and war crimes, Wall Street banditry, Abu Ghraib, AIPAC hustlers and all the sundry old crap. Our Harvard-minted Gunga Din purports to speak for all the colonial subjects but acts in the interest of the empire, its financial vampires, its war criminals and its Middle East leaches from the Land of the Chosen.

The Two Faces of Obama

Like the Janus face found on the coins of the early Roman Republic, Obama and his intimate cronies cynically joked about ‘which is the real face of Barack’, conscious of the con-job they were perpetrating during the campaign. In reality, there is only one face – a very committed, very consequential and very up front Obama, who demonstrated in every single one of his appointments the face of an empire builder.

Obama is an open militarist, intent by every means possible to re-construct a tattered US empire. The President-Elect is an unabashed Wall Street Firster ­ one who has placed the recuperation of the biggest banks and investment houses as his highest priority. Obama’s nominees for all the top economic positions (Treasury, Chief White House economic advisers) are eminently qualified, (with long-term service to the financial oligarchy), to pursue Obama’s pro-Wall Street agenda. There is not a single member of his economic team, down to the lowest level of appointees, who represents or has defended the interests of the wage or salaried classes (or for that matter the large and small manufacturers from the devastated ‘productive’ industrial economy).

The Obama propagandists claim his appointments reflect his preference for ‘experience’ ­ which is true: his team members have plenty of ‘experience’ through their long and lucrative careers maximizing profits, buyouts and speculation favoring the financial sector. Obama does not want to have any young, untested appointees who have no long established records of serving Big Finance, whose interests are too central to Obama’s deepest and most strongly held core beliefs. He wanted reliable economic functionaries who recognize that re-financing billionaire financiers is the central task of his regime. The appointments of the Summers, Rubins, Geithners and Volkers fit perfectly with his ideology: They are the best choices to pursue his economic goals.

Critics of these nominations write of the ‘failures’ of these economists and their role in ‘bringing about the collapse of the financial system’. These critics fail to recognize that it is not their ‘failures’, which are the relevant criteria, but their unwavering commitment to the interests of Wall Street and their willingness to demand trillions of dollars more from US taxpayers to bolster their colleagues on Wall Street.

Under Clinton and Bush, in the run up to the financial collapse, they facilitated (‘deregulated’) the practice of swindling one hundred million Americans of trillions in private savings and pension funds. In the current crisis period with Obama they are just the right people to swindle the US Treasury of trillions of dollars in bailout funds to refinance their fellow oligarchs. The White President (Bush) leaves steaming financial turds all over the White House rugs and Wall Street summons the ‘historic’ Negro President Obama to organize the cleanup crew to scoop them out of public view.

Obama, the Militarist, Outdoes His Predecessor

What makes Obama a much more audacious militarist and Wall Streeter than Bush is that he intends to pursue military policies, which have already greatly harmed the US people with appointed officials who have already been discredited in the context of failed imperial wars and with a domestic economy in collapse. While Bush launched his wars after the US public had their accustomed peace shattered by an orchestrated fear-mongering after 9/11, Obama intends to launch his escalation of military spending in the context of a generalized public disenchantment with the ongoing wars, with monumental fiscal deficits, bloated military budgets and after 100,000 US soldiers have been killed, wounded or psychologically destroyed.

Obama’s appointments of Clinton, General Jim Jones, dual Israeli citizen Rahm Emanuel and super-Zionist Dennis Ross, among others, fit perfectly with his imperial-militarist agenda of escalating military aggression. His short list of intelligence candidates, likewise, fits perfectly with his all-out effort to “regain US world leadership” (reconstruct US imperial networks).

All the media blather about Obama’s efforts at ‘bipartisanship’, ‘experience’ and ‘competence’ obscures the most fundamental questions: The specific nominees chosen from both parties are totally committed to military-driven empire-building. All are in favor of “a new effort to renew America’s standing in the world” (read ‘America’s imperial dominance in the world’), as Obama’s Secretary of State-to-be, Hillary Clinton, declared. General James Jones, Obama’s choice for National Security Advisor, presided over US military operations during the entire Abu Ghraib/Guantanemo period. He was a fervent supporter of the ‘troop surge’ in Iraq and is a powerful advocate for a huge increase in military spending, the expansion of the military by over 100,000 troops and the expanded militarization of American domestic society (not to mention his personal financial ties to the military industrial complex). Robert Gates, continuing as Obama’s Secretary of Defense, is a staunch supporter of unilateral, unlimited and universal imperial warfare. As the number of US-allied countries with troops in Iraq declines from 35 to only 5 by January 1, 2009 and even the Iraqi puppet regime calls for a withdrawal of all US troops by 2012, Gates, the intransigent, insists on a permanent military presence.

The issue of ‘experience’ revolves around two questions: (a) experience related to what past political practices? (b) experience relevant to pursue what future policies? All the nominees’ past experiences are related to imperial wars, colonial conquests and the construction of client states. Hiliary Clinton’s ‘experience’ was through her support for the bombing of Yugoslavia and the Nato invasion of Kosova, her promotion of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an internationally recognized terrorist-criminal organization as well as the unrelenting bombings of Iraq in the 1990s, Bush’s criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003, Israel’s murderous bombing of civilian centers in Lebanonand now full-throated calls for the ‘total obliteration of Iran’. Clinton, Gates and Jones have never in their mature political careers proposed the peaceful settlement of disputes with any adversary of the US or Israel. In other words, their vaunted ‘experience’ is based solely on their one-dimensional militarist approach to foreign relations.

‘Competence’, as an attribute again depends on the issue of ‘competence to do what’? In general terms, ‘The Three’ (Clinton, Gates and Jones), have demonstrated the greatest incompetence in extricating the US from prolonged, costly and lost colonial wars. They lack the minimum capacity to recognize that military-driven empire-building in the context of independent states is no longer feasible, that its costs can ruin an imperial economy and that prolonged wars erode their legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens.

Even within the framework of imperial geo-political strategic thinking, their positions exhibit the most dense incompetence: They blindly back a small, highly militarized and ideologically fanatical colonial state (Israel) against 1.5 billion Muslims living in oil and mineral resource-rich nations with lucrative markets and investment potential and situated in the strategic center of the world. They promote total wars against whole populations, as is occurring in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia and, which, by all historical experience, cannot be won. They are truly ‘Masters of Defeat’.

The point of the matter is that Obama appointed the ‘Big Three’ for their experience, competence and bipartisan support in the pursuit of imperial wars. He overlooked their glaring failures, their gross violations of the basic norms of civilization (of the human rights of tens of millions civilians in sovereign nations) because of their willingness to pursue the illusions of a US-dominated new world order.

Conclusion

Nothing speaks to Obama’s deep and abiding commitment to become the savior of the US empire as clearly as his willingness to appoint to the highest position of policy making the most mediocre failed politicians and generals merely because of their demonstrated willingness to pursue the course of military-driven empire building even in the midst of a collapsing domestic economy and ever more impoverished and drained citizenry.

Just as Obama’s electoral campaign and subsequent victory will go into the annals as the political con-job of the new millennium, his economic and political appointments will mark another ‘historic’ moment: The nomination of corrupt and failed speculators and warmongers. Let us join the inaugural celebration of our ‘First Afro-American’ Imperial President, who wins by con and rules by guns!

Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints — none! There is no Obama documentation — no records — no paper trail — none — this is no accident. It is being done on purpose with Media help – but to serve whom & why??

MISSING-HIDDEN DOCUMENTS:

Original, vault copy of Certificate of Live Birth in the USA — Not Released (1 version hidden in Hawaii, Original found in Kenya)

Certificate of Live Birth — Released – Proven Counterfeit (www.ObamaFiles.com)

Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released

Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released

Soetoro adoption records — Not released

Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released

Punahou School records — Not released

Selective Service Registration — Released – Proven Counterfeit

Occidental College records — Not released

Passport (Pakistan) — Not released

Columbia College records — Not released

Columbia thesis — Not released

Harvard College records — Not released

Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, Not Signed)

Baptism certificate — None

Medical records — Not released

Illinois State Senate records — None (Locked up to prohibit public view)

Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost (All other Illinois state senators’ records are intact)

Leo Donofrio called me on December 1, 2008, with more news regarding treachery inside the U.S. Supreme Court. These lawsuits are challenging Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president of these united States of America.

For those unfamiliar with Leo and his lawsuit docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court, please see this news item:

At the time Leo provided me with the update in the link above, he also informed me there was another case out of Connecticut that he was assisting on and would let me know the details soon. This is the case:

Leo informed me by phone that he wrote the 39 page brief for Cort. It was submitted to the Supreme Court and (no surprise) rejected by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Perhaps she was asleep when it came across her desk, as that seems to be how she spends her time serving the people of this nation: asleep on the bench.

As is his right, Cort resubmitted to Justice Scalia. This filing is an emergency stay application and should have been addressed immediately. Instead, and this is beyond outrageous: someone inside the Supreme Court referred Cort’s over night mail package for anthrax testing!

To say Leo was beyond words in expressing himself over this insanity is an under statement. Leo explained that Cort Wrotnowski is the quintessential example of the average American: married, two children, owns his own health food store and access to any anthrax by Cort is impossible. Not only is it impossible, the idea is preposterous and nothing but a smokescreen.

Why would a clerk do such a thing? We have to remember that Leo’s case will be conferenced by all nine supreme court justices, December 5, 2008. Make no mistake about it: this is history in the making. The electoral college votes December 15, 2008. A massive drive has been underway for weeks to reach out to the electoral college delegates in the 35 affected states with the facts about Obama the mystery man.

Cort’s case should have been enjoined with Leo’s and under ‘normal’ circumstances would be – except for the continued interference by clerks at the U.S. Supreme Court. Leo and Cort were informed by the PIO (Public Information Officer) at the Supreme Court that the anthrax testing process would take nine days. Perfect timing to foil enjoining of the two cases.

Leo lamented in his frustration that he simply cannot believe what has been happening over these lawsuits. “This is the U.S. Supreme Court we’re talking about,” said Leo. “This is where the American people go for justice and look at what is happening!”

Indeed. These events involving Barack Hussein Obama and his eligibility under the U.S. Constitution to serve as president is historical and has never happened in our life time. Not only is the prostitute media ignoring this issue of paramount importance, now the supreme court justices are being manipulated. Outrageous doesn’t even begin to cover such chicanery.

Leo has asked me to please get this information published as soon as possible. Ladies and gentlemen: What we are seeing in Washington, DC, is a mockery of everything this country has stood for and what we will stand for in the future. As Leo said, these justices are going to determine the next president of these united States of America. We the people are being short changed by obliviously politically driven non elected personnel inside the Supreme Court. We cannot remain silent.

Regular readers of my columns know I have several FOIAs (Freedom of Information Act Requests) underway. I also filed a state records act request with the University of Hawaii, Manoa, regarding Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother. This request is determine whether or not she was attending college as claimed during the time Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii. Dunham graduated from high school in 1960. Her family then relocated to Hawaii where she enrolled at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

There she met Barack Obama, Sr. They married on February 2, 1961; Dunham was three months pregnant at the time. According to the University of Hawaii, Obama’s mother attended school in the fall of 1960, but did not return to their campus until Spring of 1963. See Attached UH Registrar Letter

Two of my FOIAs involve records from the U.S. State Department regarding Dunham’s departure(s) from the U.S. and arrival(s) back onto U.S. soil during 1961. To date, I haven’t received a response from them, but it is apparent that Obama’s mother was not in school during the entire year of 1961, 1962 and part of 1963.

Two things that must get done and don’t think our numbers aren’t growing and we won’t be heard. Despite the glaring conspiracy of silence by the prostitute “mainstream media” in this country, and that includes cable networks (FAUX, CNN and MSNBC who did one hit piece on this issue), you can bet all the justices know of this huge controversy and that until the issue of Obama’s true citizenship is proven, it isn’t going to go away, i.e.:

Litigation over Sen. Obama’s Citizenship:
Orders from new president to spark lawsuit every time

If you are a radio talk show host, Leo would like to be a guest on your show to talk about these historical events. For media only, please, his phone number is 732.546.5094. If you have a favorite talk show you listen to, please ask that host to book Leo and get friends, family and business associates to tune in and listen.

While I just got back from 17 days on the road, first thing tomorrow I’m sending my letter over night mail to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. I am going to politely inform him there is treachery going on inside his court by clerks impeding the judicial process by a legitimate Petitioner. I’ll provide a brief history behind both Leo and Cort’s applications.

I’m asking you to do the same. You can send your letter to Justice Roberts here:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

You don’t have to use over night mail because it is expensive, but it only takes 15 minutes to type out a letter to Chief Justice Roberts and let him know what’s going on. Cut and paste this news item if it’s helpful. I’m also sending a copy of my letter to Congressmen Ron Paul and Ted Poe at their district offices. I’ll include just a short note asking them to investigate this matter because it must stop. This type of interference in the business of the U.S. Supreme Court cannot be allowed to continue.

Leo would like everyone to call the PIO at the U.S. Supreme Court and leave a message explaining that we the people know about the manipulation going on and are contacting members of Congress. The number to call is 202.479.3000

Stand up Americans like Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski have put their money, toil and sweat into these lawsuits because their cause is noble. They seek the truth and upholding the supreme law of the land: the U.S. Constitution. We the people must stand behind them and do our part, too. Please get those letters in the mail asap and stay on talk show hosts to have Leo as a guest.
*****************************************************

WASHINGTON – You can make sure the Supreme Court justices have a piece of your mind when they review a case Friday challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, which stipulates the position can only be filled by “a natural born citizen.”

Because the Supreme Court justices do not accept faxes, e-mails or telephone calls, there is only one way to make your voice heard in time for Friday’s preliminary hearing – overnight delivery of your letter.

To make that process simpler, more convenient and less expensive, WND has devised a plan to get a concise letter on the subject, over your name, delivered to all nine justices by FedEx for the price of just $9.95. This offer ends Thursday at noon Eastern time to ensure all letters are delivered by Friday morning to the Supreme Court.

Another way to arrange to deliver your letter is to call 1-800-4WND-COM.…………………………………………………………………………………..

Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.

According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama’s critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama’s original records.

Some of Mr. Obama’s critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject.

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.

“Let’s assume he wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. “What’s the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can’t make him president. So what’s the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he’s aware he’s not a citizen, then it’s a perjured oath.”

Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.

“He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on xecutive duty and done various things,” said Mr. Vieira. “The people that he’s put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped.”

Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama’s platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.

“Let’s say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam,” said Mr. Vieira. “What’s the nation’s reaction to that? What’s going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it.”

Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama’s continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.

“If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said ‘no,’ I would tell him, ‘you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I’m resigning as your attorney,” said Mr. Vieira. “I don’t think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so].”

Further, Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called U.S. v. Prudden, which he feels applies in this case.

“Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading,” the ruling reads. “We cannot condone this shocking conduct … If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately.”

Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.

“[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there,” said Mr. Vieira. “What if it isn’t? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn’t there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn’t there? Does the CIA know that it isn’t there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?”

Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office.

“If you don’t produce it, you think it’s going to go away,” he said. “There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing.”

Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration.

“Let’s assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act,” said Mr. Vieira. “I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning ‘you shall bring with you the documents.’ “

Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court.

Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document’s veracity as expert witnesses. Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration.

“I can’t believe I’m the only lawyer who would think of this,” said Mr. Vieira. “I think any criminal lawyer defending against one of these politically charged statutes is going to come up with this. That means it will never go away until that document is laid down on the table and people say, ‘yes, there it is.’ And therefore they’re caught. If people keep challenging this and the judges out of fear keep saying ‘no, go to jail, go to jail, go to jail’ then that’s the end of the Obama administration’s legitimacy. On the other hand if they open the file and it’s not there, then that’s really the end of the administration’s legitimacy.”

Several court cases in the birth certificate controversy are waiting admission to the Supreme Court.

A gathering of judges will meet on Dec. 5 to decide whether or not to hear a case from New Jersey, and a decision is still pending on a case from a lawyer in Pennsylvania. Should four of the judges vote to hear the case in the Dec. 5 meeting, then it will be scheduled for hearings. Court cases from Connecticut and New York have also applied for hearings at the U.S. Supreme Court.

John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us
……………………………………………………………………………………WILL AMERICA SURVIVE? SOON WE SHALL KNOW

by Alan Stang
November 28, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

The event that will determine whether or not this nation survives was not the popular vote for Illegal-Alien Elect Hussein. It will be the decision the U.S. Supreme Court makes on whether he is eligible to serve. Some people in the other branches have said the Constitution is dead. The late Republicrud Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois – a purported “conservative” – said as follows: “The Constitution is old and needs to be rewritten.”

Hyde also said this: “There are things in the Constitution that have been over taken by events, by time. The declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? . . . It’s inappropriate, it’s anachronistic and it isn’t done anymore.” So Hyde was content to leave that awesome power in the hands of one man. The Founders were not.

Many Capitol sources report that when Republican leaders were reluctant to renew certain provisions of the “Patriot” Act, el presidente Jorge W. Boosh replied, “I don’t give a goddamn. I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.” Told there was a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution, Boosh allegedly screamed, “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” Needless to say, Boosh is another “conservative.”

Of course Hyde was a legislator and Boosh is a buffoon. Their opinions are worthless. But now a confrontation approaches that will be decisive. By December first, Illegal-Alien Elect Hussein must show proof to the U.S. Supreme Court that he is a “natural born citizen.” On December fifth, the entire court will decide whether to consider the question.

There are only two possibilities. Either Hussein is a natural born citizen or he is not. So far, all the evidence says he is not. His grandmother says she was in the Mombasa hospital room when he was born. His half-siblings agree. His own site says he was a citizen of Kenya at birth. His step father registered him in school as a citizen of Indonesia. Last week, His Excellency Peter Ogego, Kenyan Ambassador to the United States, told WRIF Radio in Detroit that Hussein was indeed born in Kenya.

On the other side, there are some forged documents; there is no evidence. And now comes an investigator who uses the name “Ron Polarik,” probably for self-protection. “Polarik” is a Ph.D. with twenty years of experience validating documents, especially computer-generated documents. His report on the fraudulent Hussein documents is overwhelmingly exhaustive. Go to my site, alanstang.com, for the link to it. See what you think.

If Hussein does indeed have proof he is natural born, why has he withheld it? The only speculation I can think of is he has waited all this time to reveal it in order to embarrass lawyers Phil Berg and Leo Donofrio and many others who have filed suits. By revealing it now he could play the injured party and leave lots of egg on their faces, but the new question would arise of why he has been playing games all along and wasted so much of the nation’s time, when he could have put the matter to rest long ago. So far he still qualifies as Illegal-Alien Elect.

If the U.S. Supreme Court rules in his favor – in the face of the metastasizing evidence – I shall conclude that the Constitution now is dead and therefore that the country is no more, because the High Court says so. Remember, this is not a case with evidence and arguments on both sides, in which the court must find the preponderance. There is nothing on the other side, except counterfeits and forgeries.

One delicious aspect of the case is that during the recent campaign Hussein said he would not have nominated Justice Clarence Thomas to the High Court because, says Hussein, he was “not experienced enough,” and it was to Justice Thomas that lawyer Leo Donofrio brought his action.

Among the many differences between Hussein and Thomas is that we know where Thomas was born and he is considerably blacker than Hussein. Hussein also says he would not have nominated Justice Antonin Scalia. If these two and but two others vote to consider the citizenship issue when the full court meets on December fifth, the court will consider it. There would still be time to cancel the meeting of the electoral college. Will the court have the courage to do it?

What would it mean if the Constitution were dead? Even before the interment, the effects are apparent, as in an approaching hurricane. The Constitution is our basic, organic law, from which all written law descends. Without it, there would be lip service, not law. The government would simply issue arbitrary decrees. There would be dictatorship. The concept of legality would evaporate. How could you tell right from wrong? Something would be right if you could get away with it. If you could not, it would be wrong.

Meanwhile, remember that it was not just the superb campaign the Obamatrons mounted – including funding, organization, election fraud, etc. – that elected Hussein. Without the collaboration of the national Communist media, left and right, Hussein could not have been elected, however much funding, organization and fraud he employed. On the left there was sickening degenerate Chris Matthews, who feels a thrill run up his leg during wet dreams about Hussein. There was Katie Kook and the Communist Broadcasting System. On the right, there were Limbag, Loopy Laura and sissy puke Levin, who helped conceal the real story of Hussein, all the things we tell you here.

You may recall that, more than once, I called the people in the national Communist media traitors, enemies of this country just as much as an invading Wehrmacht division would have been in World War II, except that because these propagandist agents of a foreign power do not fight in uniform, they are terrorists and therefore are not protected by the Geneva Convention. A reader responds to those comments as follows:

“I would like to expand on your comment about the media traitors and their treatment by the people. These traitors can move freely about this country without ever a concern for their own personal safety. What if the anger against these elite and their pawns reaches a boiling point and their mobility of reporting anywhere in this country is no longer an option. The public can stop their propaganda and force them to stay in their secured studios only (kind of like the Baghdad Green Zone).

“They at the moment believe they are still safe among us. (If I were a General fighting against them, I would make these enemy propagandists fear for their own safety and lives or kidnap them for millions and make the same elite pay us back the way they stole our money and used it against us.) It would be an effective military strategy and fund the resistance of criminal gangs who have a profit motive. Think of the Somali Pirates. It’s already working.

“I live in Northern Virginia and I’ll never forget the whole DC sniper thing. One media woman, Martha Raddatz (ABC news) I recall was absolutely terrified at the time for her own life when these two black men were having their turkey shoot on the public. That intrigued me quite. These media cowards fear death and for their own personal safety more than anything.

“They believe in no God so this is it for them, heaven on earth. Think how frightened guys like Tom Brokaw, Rivera, Mrs. Greenspan, or some other reporter would be if they feared for their own safety or being kidnapped. They would not travel anymore and be scared out of their minds. They’d be limited to DC and NY (How appropriate—the new American “Green” zone—as in green save the planet (grin).)

“It will also be unsafe soon if the economy is destroyed for all people to travel long distances by car (like I do driving to Florida a lot, which some day possibly I won’t be able to do) and it will devolve into dangerous crime like you see in places like Mexico or Panama. Gangs of thugs will force you over the side of the road, rob you, (possibly rape you if you are a woman) and then kill you. That is coming if this keeps up. Mad Max.”

It is reasonable to speculate that the author of this message is not alone, that many other Americans think the same way, Americans who are no longer impressed by television “celebrities.” And by the way, I have written for radio and television in New York, as you know, and I have guested on network shows, such as the Communist News Network’s “Cross Fire,” Maury Povich and Morton Downey, Jr. I did the old Joe Pyne show a few times. It’s no big deal. It is a world of strutting peacocks who do not deserve the name and is not at all impressive.

It is a paradoxical world. The vacuum heads who run it regard you with condescension and disgust, but they must spew forth from their protected compounds to “cover” the fabricated story. They must circulate among you. More, when they make a foray into your neighborhood, they do not come merely to ridicule.

They come quite literally to tear the country apart, to bring it to its knees, to prepare it for submission to a totalitarian world government. They hate and contemn everything you do and believe. As soon as they leave, their smile becomes a sneer. And their reverence for Hussein has exposed them more than ever.

Their problem is that – unlike top government and financial conspirators – these media traitors of whom Goebbels would be proud, travel without bodyguards. They are relatively unprotected and accessible. Anyone inclined to take a run at them could do so. We saw a hint of what I am warning about in the recent, national campaign, when Shallow Sean Hannitwerp literally had to run to escape the heroes from We Are Change.

Indeed, some years back, at the height of forced school busing, incensed Bostonians chased Teddy Kennedy down the street. The putrid stench got inside before the crowd was able to tear him apart. Yes, these were Boston Irish Catholics who keep electing him. Imagine how mad they were if they trying to kill their hero.

In view of the temper of the people, that kind of thing could increase. Imagine seeing Chris Matthews or Mrs. Alan Greenscum (Andrea Mitchell) or Geraldo or one of the morons from the “View,” or Mike Wallace, the scumbag whose show I used to write, running for their lives down Main Street. (See my book, Scumbags I Have Known: And Other Profundities, at alanstang.com.)

By the way, my book, Perestroika Sunset, is a thriller about a Soviet attempt to seize power in Washington by means of a coup, using the Prisoners Of War our government abandoned in South East Asia as the pawns. In the novel, repatriated POWS and family members kidnap the traitors who have abandoned their loved ones. One by one, the traitors disappear.